[Bug 509121] Review Request: python-kaa-display - Python API providing Low level support for various displays
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jul 10 22:24:27 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509121
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2009-07-10 18:24:26 EDT ---
Indeed, this is a simple package which build fine and elicits no complaints
from rpmlint.
I checked the tests; none of them seem to be runnable. It might be nice to add
a comment about that.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
72cfe231feae7b860b9e00fb2d83e1cb54f0d38719267a4701818c4c8aa6e922
kaa-display-0.1.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
_FBmodule.so()(64bit)
_SDLmodule.so()(64bit)
_X11module.so()(64bit)
python-kaa-display = 0.1.0-1.fc12
python-kaa-display(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc12
=
libImlib2.so.1()(64bit)
libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit)
libXext.so.6()(64bit)
libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit)
python(abi) = 2.6
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
APPROVED
The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list